Home

E-Mail

Back

Prairie Grains is the official publication of
the Minnesota
Association of
Wheat Growers,
North Dakota Grain Growers Association,
South Dakota Wheat, Inc., and the Minnesota Barley Growers Association.

Glickman emphasized the importance of establishing a more comprehensive safety net for the grain production sector. The USDA recognizes the severe financial difficulties facing wheat producers, and is looking into viable and long-term solutions to the problem, Glickman said, including crop insurance reform as a better tool for assisting farmers.

The USDA is looking at the possibility of Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) financing of private/producer owned grain storage, he said. Glickman also suggested that CCC financing of grain terminal cleaning facilities may be needed within the industry: such a move would help the U.S. prevent the loss of markets to competitors such as Canada who already employ similar practices—but with the government picking up the tab.

Jim Stonebrink, Wallowa, Ore., was elected 1999 NAWG president; Terry Detrick, Ringwood, Okla., vice president; Tommy Womack, Tulia, Tex., secretary/treasurer; and Bill Flory, Culdesac, Idaho, past president.

Madison Angell, Mocksville, NC, was elected chairman of the NAWG Foundation. Pete Kappes, Ada, MN, was elected vice chairman; Dusty Tallman, Brandon, Colo, secretary/treasurer; and Jerry Thuesen, Reserve, MT, past chairman.

1999 NAWG Resolutions

The NAWG adopted its slate of farm policy resolutions for 1999, which may be found in its entirety from your state wheat association or the NAWG web site, www.wheatworld.org. A few highlights:

1996 Farm Bill changes

NAWG specifically supports the following adjustments and changes to the 1996 Farm Bill: 1) A non-recourse marketing loan safety net established at 100% of the five- year simple average wheat price without any loan rate caps. 2) Marketing loans that have an 18-month maturity and accrue interest at the lowest possible rate. 3) Renegotiating total equity between program crops. 4) The continuation of the 1938 and 1949 permanent agriculture law, or other permanent law mandating a marketing loan at 110% of the five- year simple average price in the event future farm bills are allowed to expire without new legislation. 5) Legislation to increase the marketing loan to a level of 200% or higher of the five-year simple average price in the event that U.S. policy changes in such a way that it interferes with the export of U.S. agricultural products. 6) Total planting and production flexibility of all crops on all eligible land including unlimited haying and grazing. 7) Allowing fruits and vegetables to be raised on contract acres without decreasing or eliminating farm program payments.

Crop insurance

The Actual Production History (APH) calculation needs modification to provide both a reasonable basis for coverage and a less onerous penalty for those who are subject to abnormal periods of crop loss due to factors beyond their control or seek to control their crop rotations and/or add "new" land to their farming operations.

Adequate funding must be provided to the crop insurance program to improve participation and coverage levels for wheat producers. Coverage options should be increase to at least 85% of the producer’s APH or other measures utilized in the determination of protection levels. Additionally, increased funding should be provided to reduce the producer cost of insurance at higher coverage levels for both multi-peril and revenue products. At a minimum, this support should be comparable to that provided to purchasers of 65/100 multi-peril coverage.

The savings derived from eliminating disaster assistance programs should be applied to building a comprehensive and affordable crop insurance program and additional funding requirements should not come at the expense of other agricultural programs.

In addition to traditional crop insurance products that provide protection from losses associated with crop losses and/or combinations of crop and revenue losses, a separate price risk coverage option should be considered. Such a program should initially be established for commodities that have active, publicly available market price information. The basis for coverage could be developed along several different formats, for example: 1) Provide the revenue coverage portion of Crop Revenue Coverage (CRC) as a separate option for consideration by producers. 2) Development of a price coverage policy based on an average of historic market prices.

The NAWG recognizes that the revision of malt barley coverage has resulted in continued inadequate coverage of malt barley and recommends that coverage address all quality factors that relate to the actual economic loss to wheat producers.

NAWG supports changes in the RMA (Risk Management Agency) program which provide for review and extension of final seeding dates in response to variable year to year weather conditions at the option of the RMA regional director.

The NAWG recommends that catastrophic (CAT) coverage and its sister program, Non-insured Assistance Program (NAP), should be replaced with premium based coverage options.

The NAWG supports the development of a dollar per acre based option for crop insurance coverage, and regulatory rules that allow producers the opportunity to set up group risk insurance pools (of one) to be used in aiding producers to smooth out the ups and downs of agriculture production/prices. By setting up these insurance pools, it would allow all agricultural producers to use a combination of self-insured risk management and other instruments available.

Exports, Trade, Marketing

The NAWG urges the Administration to exercise an aggressive export policy to regain world market share by fully utilizing the Export Market Enhancement Program (EEP), the Market Promotion Program, and all other export incentive tools legal under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement. As the U.S. reduces its support to agriculture through commodity programs, we must maintain and use EEP funding at no less than WTO-legal levels, with emphasis on raw products. Any unused farm program budget authority should be carried forward to future years and utilized to enhance EEP and/or marketing programs and/or increase the payment limits and funding for practices. The NAWG also supports the continuance of sanctions indemnity payments.

The NAWG supports the granting of fast track authority to the President, and believes that all imported wheat and barley shall be purchased directly from individual private producers.

The NAWG is disappointed that more reductions in the use of export subsidies could not be achieved in the Uruguay Round of GATT and that the unfair pricing practices of the monopolistic grain boards and state trading enterprises were not disciplined. Therefore, the NAWG will seek specific assurances that U.S. export programs operated by the USDA, especially EEP, will be used to the fullest extent of the agreement (in a flexible and aggressive manner) in order to maximize the benefits of these programs to U.S. wheat producers.

The NAWG recommends that future trade negotiations address the important issues of domestic support programs, export subsidies, market access, state trading enterprises, phytosanitary barriers, biotechnology, and import barriers.

The NAWG believes the Canadian government has intentionally withheld important and key information crucial to effective negotiations as a continuing tactic to gain advantage in trade negotiations. Therefore, until the Canadian government gives immediate, full and unrestricted disclosure of all information requested to conduct meaningful trade negotiations concerning wheat, barley and durum, all imports of these grains from Canada should be discontinued.

The NAWG supports the development of a task force with members from U.S. Wheat Associates and the Wheat Export Trade Education Committee to look into the feasibility of U.S. Wheat organizing an independent cooperative that can enter into international commercial transactions that expand the wheat exports of U.S. producers in relation to market development activities.

The NAWG recommends an anti-trust review of mergers within the agricultural industry.

The NAWG recommends a market impact study on how genetic engineering will impact the marketing of wheat and wheat products and the profitability to growers.

Taxes

The NAWG supports the total elimination of estate taxes.

The NAWG recommends that the Internal Revenue Service allow a qualified farmer to transfer a percentage of moneys received from agricultural land and asset sales into other retirement accounts (such as IRA’s) without immediate tax consequences.

Crop Protection

The NAWG opposes the current pesticide re-registration process when it results in cancellation of pesticides due to industry’s economic inability to fund the required research. NAWG insists that stronger consideration be given to the availability of alternative products before a product is canceled under re-registration.

The NAWG encourages that efforts to harmonize U.S.-Canadian regulatory programs for pesticides be accelerated. Successful harmonization should lead to the equalization of product availability in both Canada and the United States, price equivalency of the products and the elimination of import tolerances.

Research

The NAWG supports the establishment of a Wheat Research Council and a Director of Wheat Science to prioritize, coordinate, promote and leverage wheat research at the national and regional level.

The NAWG strongly supports the continuation of Fusarium Head Blight research funding, and that the U.S. wheat genome mapping funding initiative include the identification of molecular markers for fusarium head blight, other emerging diseases and quality characteristics.